United States Postal Service

120 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD United States Postal Service and Charles B. Rich- ardson. Case 17-CA-12451(P) July 29, 1988 DECISION AND ORDER BY CHAIRMAN STEPHENS AND MEMBERS JOHANSEN AND BABSON On February 19, 1986, Administrative Law Judge Stephen M. Charno issued the attached deci- sion. The Respondent filed exceptions and a sup- porting brief, and the General Counsel filed an an- swering brief. The National Labor Relations Board has delegat- ed its authority in this proceeding to a three- member panel. The Board has considered the decision and the record in light of the exceptions and briefs and has decided to affirm the judge's rulings, findings,' and conclusions as modified, to modify the remedy, 2 and to adopt the recommended Order. The judge found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act by refusing to re- assign and promote Charles Richardson, and violat- ed Section 8(a)(1) by threatening to harass, retaliate against, and prevent Richardson's advancement be- cause he had filed grievances or otherwise engaged in protected concerted activity. In its answer and at the hearing, the Respondent denied that it had violated the Act as alleged and argued that the dis- pute here was cognizable under the grievance-arbi- tration provisions of a collective-bargaining agree- ment between the Respondent and the American Postal Workers Union, which represents Richard- son. Accordingly, relying on the Board's decision in United Technologies Corp., 268 NLRB 557 (1984), and Collyer Insulated Wire, 192 NLRB 837 (1971), the Respondent urged that the matter be deferred. i The Respondent has excepted to some of the judge's credibility find- ings. The Board's established policy is riot to overrule an administrative law judge's credibility resolutions unless the clear preponderance of all the relevant evidence convinces us that they are incorrect . Standard Dry Wall Products, 91 NLRB 544 (1950), enfd . 188 F 2d 362 (3d Cir 1951). We have carefully examined the record and find no basis for reversing the findings. In agreement with the judge, we find that the instant charge involving the 8(aX3) allegation was timely filed in accordance with Sec . 10(b) of the Act. In this respect, we note that the action by the Respondent which gives rise to the alleged 8(a)(3) 'iolation did not occur until Sep- tember 26, 1984, when the Respondent , by letter, notified Charging Party Richardson that another employee had been awarded the desired transfer. Inasmuch as the instant charge was filed on January 9, 1985 , the event of September 26, 1984, is clearly encompassed within the statutory 6-month period for the filing of charges under Sec. 10(b) of the Act. 2 In accordance with our decision in New Horizons for the Retarded, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987), interest on and after January I, 1987, shall be computed at the "short-term Federal rate" for the underpayment of taxes as set out in the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S C. § 6621 . Interest on amounts accrued prior to January 1, 1987 (the effective date of the 1986 amendment to 26 U.S.C. § 6621 ), shall be computed in accordance with Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977). At the hearing, the judge refused to defer this dispute to the grievance procedure.3 In refusing to defer at the hearing, the judge stated that it was not "altogether" clear that the issues which would be presented in the grievance procedure were suffi- ciently similar to those presented to the Board such that the standards set forth in Spielberg Mfg. Co., 112 NLRB 1080 (1955), could be applied.4 Indicat- ing that, if the General Counsel's prima facie case were believed, there was a violation of the Act here, the judge contrasted this with the Union's purported doubt as to whether a contract violation existed. The judge also noted that the Charging Party in this case was Richardson, not the Union. He found that when Richardson sought to use the grievance procedure , the use of that process was denied him by the Union. Thus, the judge conclud- ed that it would be inappropriate to deny Richard- son the protection of the Act's processes based on the actions of the Union, which did not appear to be motivated by a desire to avoid deferral to arbi- tration by the Board. We agree with the judge that deferral in this case is inappropriate, but in doing so we rely on the fact that this grievance-arbitration procedure has been totally ineffective in curbing the Respond- ent's proclivity to retaliate against the Charging Party for filing grievances. The record shows that Charging Party Richard- son has filed numerous grievances since 1981. Rich- ardson has also filed several EEO complaints against the Respondent, including one that alleged the Respondent had taken reprisals against him for filing complaints and grievances. The grievances and EEO complaints consistently were resolved in Richardson's favor. In this proceeding the Respondent, through Postmaster Clarence Bounds (Richardson's supervi- sor), is alleged to have refused to reassign and pro- mote Richardson, and to have threatened and har- assed him because of his grievance-filing. The record contains evidence that Bounds told Rich- ardson he would not be reassigned because he had filed complaints and grievances, that he could file a grievance if he did not like the work assignments, and that Bounds would "get back" at Richardson if he continued to file grievances. We find that the record evidence establishes that the Respondent has engaged in a series of reprisals against Richardson for his grievance -filing activity. This pattern of hostile conduct is fundamentally at odds with the Act and the policy behind deferral. 8 In his decision, the judge reaffirmed that refusal without elaboration. 4 Spielberg deals with the issue of whether the Board will defer to an arbitration decision. The Respondent was not relying on Spielberg in seeking initial deferral to the arbitration procedure 290 NLRB No. 20 POSTAL SERVICE The facts of the case at bar show a continuation of the earlier coercive conduct, and the Respondent's recent statements reveal an intent to retaliate against Richardson in the future. In these circum- stances, the grievance-arbitration machinery we are being asked to defer to has become meaningless in the extended campaign of reprisals against Richard- son. Accordingly, we will not require Richardson to perform what has clearly become a futile act. The Respondent's own words have established the futility of future grievance-filing by Richardson. Having concluded that deferral is inappropriate here, we have considered the merits of the alleged unfair labor practices. For the reasons set forth by the judge, we adopt his conclusions that the Re- spondent has violated Section 8(a)(3) and ( 1) as al- leged in the complaint. ORDER The National Labor Relations Board adopts the recommended Order of the administrative law judge and orders that the Respondent, United States Postal Service, Joplin, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Order, except that the attached notice is substituted for that of the administrative law judge. APPENDIX NOTICE To EMPLOYEES POSTED BY ORDER OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD An Agency of the United States Government The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated the National Labor Relations Act and has ordered us to post and abide by this notice. WE WILL NOT refuse to reassign or promote you because you file a grievance or otherwise engage in protected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT threaten to harass, retaliate against you, or prevent your advancement because you file a grievance or otherwise engage in pro- tected concerted activity. WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, restrain, or coerce you in the exer- cise of the rights guaranteed you by Section 7 of the Act. WE WILL offer Charles B. Richardson a full-time regular carrier position at the Galena Post Office. WE WILL make Charles B. Richardson whole, with interest, for any loss of pay resulting from our unlawful refusals to reassign and to promote him. UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 121 Julie K. Hughes, Esq., for the General Counsel. Lynn D. Poole, Esq., of Washington, D.C., for the Re- spondent. Mike Gunter, of Carbondale, Illinois, for the Charging Party. DECISION STEVEN M. CHARNO, Administrative Law Judge. In response to a charge filed on 9 January 1985, a complaint was issued on 1 April 1985 alleging that the United States Postal Service (Respondent) had violated Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to reassign and promote Charles B. Richardson and by threatening and harassing him because he had en- gaged in protected concerted activity. Respondent's answer denied the commission of any unfair labor prac- tice A hearing was held before me in Joplin, Missouri, on 29 May 1985 and 10-12 July 1985. At the hearing, the complaint was amended over Respondent's objection to allege an additional violation of Section 8(a)(1). On 23 August 1985, Respondent sought permission to file an in- terlocutory appeal on the issue of whether the Board should defer to arbitration concerning the matters in- volved in this case. The Board denied permission to appeal on 5 November 1985, without prejudice to the re- newal of Respondent's request for deferral on exception. Briefs were thereafter filed by the General Counsel and Respondent under extended due date of 17 December 1985. On the entire record and after due consideration, I make the following FINDINGS OF FACT 1. JURISDICTION Respondent provides postal services for the United States of America and operates various facilities through- out the country in the performance of that function, in- cluding the facility involved in this proceeding at Galena, Kansas. It is admitted, and I find, that the Board has jurisdiction over Respondent and the subject matter of this proceeding by virtue of section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970 American Postal Workers Union is admitted to be, and I find is, a labor organization within the meaning of the Act. II THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES A. Background At the Galena facility, clerical employees are repre- sented by the Union and mail carriers on city routes are represented by the National Association of Letter Carri- ers (Association). At all times relevant, Respondent, the Union, and the Association were parties to a collective- bargaining agreement covering the represented employ- ees. That agreement provides that work in the clerical craft and work in the carrier craft shall not normally be combined in a single job position When Respondent wishes to fill a full-time position, the collective-bargain- 122 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD ing agreement establishes that the most senior part-time employee in the same craft as the vacancy shall, under most circumstances, receive the job. When there are no eligible employees within the same craft , Respondent is free to select an outside applicant or choose an employee from another craft who has requested reassignment. Under the grievance procedure established by the collec- tive-bargaining agreement, grievances arising at the Galena facility are to be heard at the first level by the local postmaster and at the second level by Respondent's management in Wichita, Kansas. Charles B. Richardson was hired by Respondent on 9 April 1977 as a part-time clerk at its Joplin facility. In the fall of 1979, Richardson wished to transfer to Re- spondent's Galena facility and contacted that facility's postmaster, Clarence Bounds. In November 1979, Bounds offered Richardson a position as a part-time clerk-carrier' and indicated that Richardson could become a full-time carrier within 3 to 4 years. This offer did not constitute an absolute promise of advancement, but impliedly required that Richardson maintain a satis- factory level of performance . Richardson accepted the offer and transferred to Galena, effective 1 December 1979. Respondent's Galena facility is relatively small. At the time of the hearing, the work force consisted of two full- time rural carriers, two full-time city route carriers, one part-time carrier, and two part-time clerks . Bounds was the sole supervisor. B. The Alleged Discrimination In February 1983,2 Richardson was assigned to work holidays and days off for Lester Clarkson, a full-time city route carrier. It is unclear from the record whether there was any other employee who was eligible and will- ing to accept such an assignment at that time . Between February and the beginning of July 1983, no customer complaints were recorded concerning Richardson's per- formance as a carrier. On 11 July 1983, Bounds began to document a series of customer complaints against Richardson. Although all of Respondent's employees are authorized to take com- plaints from customers, 18 of the 19 complaints recorded against Richardson were documented by Bounds. The remaining complaint was documented by Timothy Weston, and it is uncertain whether Bounds encouraged other employees to solicit complaints concerning Rich- ardson.3 Twelve of the complaints documented by ' Richardson and his wife so testified Bounds denied offering Richard- son a position so denominated and advanced arguments in support of the denial I do not credit Bounds in light of official documents that he pre- pared on 13 October 1981 and 8 November 1983 which describe Richard- son's position as -clerk-carrier." Although determination of the correct title for Richardson's position is not necessary to the resolution of any issue in this case, Bounds' testimony on this question showed a lack of candor and reflected adversely on his credibility 2 The beginning date of Richardson's service as a carrier is taken from an employment history prepared by Bounds. 0 When asked whether he encouraged Clarkson to solicit customer complaints about Richardson, Bounds refused to respond directly. His evasiveness, together with his evident nervousness during this line of questioning, reflect adversely on Bounds' credibility. Bounds concerned reported misdeliveries of mail by Richardson although Bounds admittedly did not consider identical reports of carrier Weston's misdeliveries to be complaints. Indeed, there is no evidence that any other carrier ever had a customer complaint documented against him for misdelivering mail, even though all the city route carriers who testified had made misdeliveries. The record is devoid of credible evidence of the number and nature of complaints received by Respondent con- cerning carriers of experience similar to that of Richard- son during a comparable time period.4 On 24 February 1984,5 Bounds disciplined Richardson for misdelivery of mail and discourtesy by giving him a letter of warning . On 8 March, Richardson filed a griev- ance concerning the letter and, at the second stage of the grievance procedure, the warning was reduced by Bounds' superiors to a job discussion , a nondisciplinary action. Later in March, Bounds denied Richardson a pay increase, and Richardson filed a grievance concerning that decision on 28 March. On 29 March,° Bounds re- lieved Richardson of all carrier duties, purportedly be- cause of customer complaints and a failure to work effi- ciently . On 16 April, the grievance concerning the pay increase was decided in Richardson 's favor by Bounds' superiors at the second level of the grievance procedure. During the summer, Respondent created a part-time carrier position in anticipation of Clarkson's impending retirement. On 26 June, Weston requested reassignment to the carrier craft, and Richardson made a similar re- quest on 6 July. In early July, Bounds took the unprece- dented step7 of asking carriers Clarkson and Teddy Wat- kins to recommend an employee to fill the upcoming car- rier vacancy. When Bounds made the request, he was aware that the two carriers did not get along with Rich- ardson and expected that they would recommend Weston. As Bounds planned, Clarkson and Watkins wrote a letter suggesting Weston for the vacancy, even though the latter had never worked as a carrier.8 On 11 July, Bounds told Richardson that Weston, rather than Richardson, would be reassigned as a carrier because of the complaints and grievancese filed by Rich- 4 Bounds testified that an average carrier would receive three to four complaints during a similar period , but no documentary evidence was of- fered on this question In light of Bounds' disparate treatment of Richard- son and Weston with regard to misdelivered mail, his demonstrated antip- athy toward Richardson and his overall demeanor while testifying, I find his unsupported testimony on this point to be suppositious and do not credit it. ° All dates refer to 1984, unless otherwise specified. ° This date is taken from contemporaneous records prepared by Bounds. 7 Watkins testified that this was the only such request he had received in over 25 years as a carrier. ° Clarkson and Watkins, who are the sole members and, consequently, the officers of Local 793 of the Association, wrote the letter on the Asso- ciation's stationery . I do not accept Respondent 's contention on brief that the letter constituted the Association's official position. ° At the time of this conversation, Richardson had filed grievances and/or EEO complaints concerning at least seven matters . In the spring of 1981 , Richardson filed a grievance over Bound's insistence that Rich- ardson work as a supervisor. This was resolved when a union steward pointed out that the collective-bargaining agreement prevented a post- master from requiring an employee to work as a supervisor. On 23 April 1981, Richardson filed an EEO complaint over Bounds' accusation that Continued POSTAL SERVICE ardson and because of the Clarkson/Watkins letter.10 Following this conversation, Richardson called the union business agent to discuss the possibility of filing a griev- ance. The agent advised Richardson to wait until a final decision was made concerning the position. On 19 September, Bounds wrote a letter to higher management in Wichita recommending Weston for the carrier vacancy. Attached to the letter were employment histories that Bounds had prepared for both applicants. Weston's history mentioned his general work habits and concluded by referring to his tenure as a mail carrier, which had not begun until 13 September. No mention was made of the fact that Weston had not filed any grievances or complaints. The employment history Bounds prepared for Richardson mentioned the latter's tendency to file grievances and EEO complaints, dis- coursed on Richardson's "attitude," referred to the "cus- tomer complaints" documented by Bounds and conclud- ed that Bounds would consider a future reassignment re- quest from Richardson if the latter were "on a course which is for the team and not for one individual." Bounds' recommendation that Weston receive the carrier position was routinely approved by Respondent's man- agement. During a September 29 conversation overheard by carrier Earl Williams, Richardson asked Bounds about the vacancy, and Bounds stated that Richardson would not receive the reassignment because he had filed griev- ances and EEO complaints." Bounds then suggested that Richardson file another complaint if he was dissatis- fied. Shortly thereafter, Richardson called the Union and asked that a grievance be filed concerning the reassign- Richardson had $42 belonging to Bounds The record does not indicate any resolution of the matter, but no reference to disciplinary action ap- pears in Richardson's personnel folder On 21 September 1981, Richard- son filed a grievance concerning a warning issued to him by Bounds At the second level of the grievance procedure, the matter was resolved in Richardson's favor by Bounds' superiors On 13 October 1981, Richard- son filed a grievance and an EEO complaint concerning Bounds' imposi- tion of a 14-day suspension Richardson was awarded 40 hours' pay as a result of the EEO complaint and an additional 40 hours' pay by Bounds' superiors at the second level of the grievance procedure On 6 July 1982, Richardson filed an EEO complaint against Bounds for reprisals over past complaints and grievances This was settled with both parties agree- ing to strive to resolve their differences The other grievances filed by Richardson prior to the July II conversation are outlined in the text The content and resolution of Richardson's grievances and EEO complaints are significant only to the extent that they provide a motivation for Bounds' actions regarding Richardson 10 Richardson so testified Although Bounds admitted the conversa- tion, he denied referring to Richardson's grievances and complaints Be- cause of Bounds' overindulged penchant for mendacity while testifying and based on his demeanor on the stand and in the hearing room, I do not credit his denial Indeed, the fact that Bounds mentioned grievances and complaints during this conversation is consonant with his undisputed reference to them in an employment history he prepared concerning Richardson only 2 months later 11 Richardson and Williams so testified Bounds again admitted the conversation but denied making any reference to grievances and com- plaints At the time Williams took the stand, he was in Respondent's employ and therefore testifying against his personal interest See Georgia Rug Miii, 131 NLRB 1304, 1305 fn 2 (1961) Unlike Respondent, I do not find it improbable that Williams would remember only the most star- tling portion of an overheard conversation that did not directly concern him and that had taken place more than 9 months before Given Bounds' consistently demonstrated lack of candor in this proceeding, I do not credit his denial 123 ment . A union business agent told Richardson that the reassignment constituted a lateral move and was not, therefore, governed by or grievable under the collective- bargaining agreement The agent then suggested that Richardson file an EEO complaint. Richardson did so, and that complaint was pending at the time of the hear- ing in this proceeding. Weston became a part-time carrier on October 13. On 21 November, Richardson asked Bounds for addi- tional hours. Bounds refused and told Richardson that he could file a grievance or seek other employment if he did not like the decision. 1 2 On 23 November, Bounds sched- uled carrier Weston to work as a clerk when Richardson was available for work When confronted, Bounds again told Richardson that he could file a grievance or find an- other job if he did not like the decision.13 Richardson's subsequent grievance over the cross-craft assignment was decided in his favor by Bounds' superiors.14 On 27 November, Richardson called one of Respond- ent's management officials in Wichita and provided him with citations to portions of the collective-bargaining agreement that Richardson thought had been violated by the reassignment. By letter of 29 November, Respondent informed Richardson that the agreement did not apply to the reassignment. In January 1985, Weston, who was the senior part- time carrier, was promoted to fill a full-time carrier va- cancy. On 21 January 1985, Bounds altered the number of hours on Richardson's timecard by 1 hour because a power outage had stopped the timeclock When Richard- son protested this action, Bounds suggested that Richard- son file another grievance. Bounds added that Richard- son could continue to file grievances but that Bounds would continue to get back at Richardson for doing so 15 C. Discussion Two prefatory issues require resolution. The first con- cerns Respondent's repeated request that the Board defer to the grievance procedure established by the collective- bargaining agreement between Respondent and the Union. Based on the foregoing findings and for the rea- sons I gave at the hearing, I reaffirm my ruling denying Respondent's request for deferral The second preliminary matter concerns Respondent's contention that the 11 July 1984 conversation falls out- side of the 6-month statute of limitations mandated by Section 10(b) of the Act. The running of the statutory period is halted by the service of a charge, and service occurs on the date the charge is mailed. See Laborers iz This finding is based on the mutually corrobative testimony of Bounds and Richardson 1' Richardson so testified Bounds stated that he did not recall the con- versation in detail but admitted telling Richardson that "he could file a grievance" or "maybe he should seek other employment " 14 Bounds' assertion under oath that he made the assignment because he was unaware of a recent change in the contract is of a piece with the remainder of his testimony The record is clear that no such change had been made in the collective-bargaining agreement since at least 1981 16 This finding is based on Richardson's testimony I do not credit Bounds' denial for the reasons set forth in prior credibility resolutions 124 DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Local 264, 216 NLRB 40, 43 (1975), enfd. 529 F.2d 778 (8th Cir. 1976). Because the charge in this case was mailed on 9 January 1985, the events of 11 July 1984 are clearly within the statutory period . Respondent also ap- pears to contend that , because Bounds threatened Rich- ardson with loss of future preferment during a conversa- tion that took place no later than 26 March 1984,16 the statutory period relating to Respondent's refusal to reas- sign and promote Richardson should begin to run on that date. Because Richardson's application for reassignment was not denied until 26 September 1984, no final adverse employment action concerning him took place or could have taken place in March 1984. Accordingly , the statu- tory period did not begin to run in March. See Postal Service Marina Center, 271 NLRB 397, 400 (1984). The central issue in this case is whether Bounds' deci- sion not to reassign Richardson violated the Act. It is clear from the record that Respondent's decisions con- cerning a reassignment between crafts are discretionary and may, therefore, be made for any lawful reason or for no reason at all. Respondent cannot , however, make such a decision for a discriminatory reason. That is, Re- spondent cannot lawfully deny Richardson a reassign- ment because he exercised his right under the collective- bargaining agreement to file grievances. Respondent contends that Bounds made the reassign- ment decision based on the superiority of Weston's per- formance, the customer complaints against Richardson, and the Clarkson/Watkins' letter recommending Weston. The significance of the superiority of Weston 's perform- ance as a carrier is rendered suspect by the fact that Bounds made his decision no later than 11 July-over 2 months before Weston began carrying mail. Similarly, the timing, manner of collection , and disparate nature of the complaints documented by Bounds against Richard- son rob them of any probative value. Even if it were concluded that Bounds had not been "papering a case" against Richardson, the absence of any probative evi- dence concerning the number and nature of complaints received about other carriers makes it impossible to evaluate the significance of the complaints relating to Richardson. Finally, the carrier letter was not solicited by Bounds as an evaluative aid but as additional justifica- tion for a previously made decision. Accordingly, I con- clude that the justifications advanced by Respondent were wholly pretextual. The real reason for refusing to reassign Richardson was the one repeatedly iterated by Bounds: Richardson filed too many grievances, almost all of which resulted in Bounds' decisions being reversed by his superiors. Respondent also contends that the denial of Richard- son's reassignment request cannot be discriminatory, even if Bounds was unlawfully motivated, because offi- cials in Wichita made the final decision . In Frank Paxton Lumber Co., 235 NLRB 582, 583 (1978), the Board re- jected this argument and held that a line supervisor's dis- criminatory recommendation bound the management of- ficial who made the final adverse action decision. In any event, it is clear that Respondent 's managers relied on and routinely approved Bounds' decision. For the fore- 16 That threat was not alleged to be violative of the Act, going reasons, I find that Respondent's refusals to reas- sign and, consequently, to promote Richardson violate Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. Resolution of the remaining issues raised by the com- plaint turns on the findings set out above . The record es- tablishes that on 11 July and 29 September 1984 Bounds told Richardson that the latter would not be reassigned because he had filed complaints and grievances. On 23 and 25 November 1984, Bounds implied that he would continue to make decisions adversely affecting Richard- son because of the complaints and grievances filed by the latter. Finally, on 21 January 1985, Bounds stated that he would "get back" at Richardson if the latter continued to file grievances. All of these statements by Bounds constitute threats designed to discourage protected con- certed activity and are therefore violative of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Respondent is an employer over whom the Board has jurisdiction by virtue of section 1209 of the Postal Reorganization Act of 1970. 2. The Union is a labor organization within the mean- ing of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening to harass , retaliate against, and pre- vent the advancement of Charles B. Richardson because he filed grievances, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. By refusing to reassign and promote Charles B. Richardson because he filed grievances, Respondent has engaged and is engaging in unfair labor practices in vio- lation of Section 8(a)(1) and (3) of the Act. 5. The aforesaid unfair labor practices affect commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. REMEDY Because Respondent engaged in unfair labor practices, it shall be ordered to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the purposes of the Act. Such affirmative action shall in- clude an offer to Charles B. Richardson of a full-time regular carrier position at the Galena facility, displacing if necessary any employee assigned to such a position since 31 December 1984. See Marian Lewis, Inc., 270 NLRB 432, 434 (1984). Richardson shall be made whole for any loss he may have suffered as a result of Respond- ent's discriminatory refusals to reassign him on 13 Octo- ber 1984 and to promote him in January 1985. Backpay will be calculated in accordance with the formula set forth in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289 (150), to which interest shall be added in the manner provided in Florida Steel Corp., 231 NLRB 651 (1977).17 On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the entire record, I issue the following recommend- ed18 17 See generally Isis Plumbing Co., 138 NLRB 716 (1962). 18 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 10246 of the Board's Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall , as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all pur- poses POSTAL SERVICE 125 ORDER The Respondent, United States Postal Service, Galena, Missouri, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall 1. Cease and desist from (a) Refusing to reassign or promote its employees be- cause they file grievances or otherwise engage in pro- tected concerted activity. (b) Threatening to harass, retaliate against, or prevent the advancement of its employees because they file grievances or otherwise engage in protected concerted activity. (c) In any like or related manner interfering with, re- straining, or coercing its employees in the exercise of their rights to engage or refrain from engaging in any or all of the activities specified in Section 7 of the Act 2 Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act. (a) Offer Charles B. Richardson a full-time regular car- rier position at its Galena facility. (b) Make Charles B. Richardson whole for any loss of earnings he may have suffered as a result of Respond- ent's discrimination against him in the manner set forth in the remedy section of this decision. (c) Preserve and, on request, make available to the Board or its agents for examination and copying, all pay- roll records, social security payment records, timecards, personnel records and reports, and all other records nec- essary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Order. (d) Post at its Galena, Kansas facility copies of the at- tached notice marked "Appendix "19 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for Region 17, after being signed by the Respondent's au- thorized representative, shall be posted by the Respond- ent immediately upon receipt and maintained for 60 con- secutive days in conspicuous places including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Rea- sonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (e) Notify the Regional Director in writing within 20 days from the date of this Order what steps the Re- spondent has taken to comply. 19 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by Order of the Nation- al Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor Relations Board "